• vortic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    8 months ago

    How is this different from a tenant taking their patio furniture with the? “It’s worth more with the patio furniture”. “The new tenants are expecting the nice patio furniture to be there!”

    Plants cost money and effort and, in many cases, can be successfully transplanted to a new location. It seems to me that the tenant simply took their property with them when they left.

    • MudSkipperKisser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      8 months ago

      No idea the laws or standard practices in OP’s location but a general rule of thumb where I am is if you flipped the house upside down anything that falls to the ground goes and everything else stays-meaning anything that’s attached/affixed to the property stays (or at least should be specifically referenced in a contract as included or excluded with the rent/sale). Plants that have been planted into the ground could be reasonably expected to stay from the new renter’s perspective, they have no way of knowing that was an improvement made by the current tenant and not the landlord/owner. The landlord messed up by not having this discussion explicitly with the current tenant and just assuming they were leaving the plants. I think it would be reasonable for the new tenant to require the landlord to plant a new garden to match the old, especially if it was specifically advertised that way